It is not impossible to feel some sympathy for the Orange Order and that section of the unionist community which is now filled with anger over the decision of the Independent Parades Commission to reroute next Sunday's march away from the nationalist Garvaghy Road. But on any rational basis the right to march a traditional route on what was once a quiet country road must surely yield to the reality that it is now a built-up area whose population is almost wholly inimical to Orangeism. Its residents do not see the Portadown brothers as traditionalists at prayer but as participants in an annual pageant of supremacism.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Garvaghy Road has been the customary route since 1807 for the Orangemen returning from Drumcree Church, in the 1990s the march is undeniably a clear gesture of political coat-trailing. And for all that there are a great many nationalists who are only too willing to be provoked, it is wrong that one community's traditional symbols of domination should be paraded past the front doors of another. The rights of people living in the here-and-now must take precedence over rituals of thanksgiving for ancient victories and the praise of dead heroes.
The balance of right and wrong does not favour the Orangemen. It is impossible to see how the Parades Commission could have come to any decision other than to ban the parade, a fortiori since the Order refused to engage in dialogue of any sort with the residents to ascertain if a compromise might be achieved. In all probability the more militant elements within the residents' coalition would have blocked any possible accommodation. But in refusing dialogue the Order sacrificed much of whatever moral advantage it might have been able to claim.
Within the Order itself there is deep disappointment that its responsible and co-operative attitude in other recent parade issues has not resulted in a different determination by the Commission. That sentiment is widespread among those members of the Order who recognise the necessity of limiting and toning down the overtly provocative aspects of traditional Orange ceremonial. Many of these believe they must proclaim what they see as the positive aspects of Orangeism, high standards, personal integrity and its legitimate commemorative role. They have described the Commission's decision as flawed and as a great breach of their civil liberties.
The Order has a line of appeal at law and it seems likely it will exercise that option in the coming days. But it must earnestly be hoped, whatever the outcome of an appeal, that there will be no departure from the law-abiding and responsible stance of recent times. Threats of widespread protest and civil disruption in the tinder-box environment of Northern Ireland, with the consequent stretching of the security forces, are potentially lethal. Talk of refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of the Commission comes dangerously close - as its chairman has said - to choosing which laws one will observe and which one will reject.
A time will come, hopefully, when both traditions in Northern Ireland will have sufficient confidence in themselves and sufficient sense of forgiveness for each other to allow marchers to go where they will without tension or provocation. But that happy condition is a long way off. In the meantime, sacrifices have to be made and compromises have to be endured. Last year the residents of the Garvaghy Road had to live with the decision of the Chief Constable of the RUC to push the march through their neighbourhood while they were confined to their homes by sheer weight of police numbers. This year, the Orange Order is not asked to endure such privations. It is asked merely to obey the law; and if it feels it must protest against the law, to do so peacefully.